Pages

Tuesday, 2 May 2017

On Fairy Tales - by Gillian Polack

Last month I gave a speech on fairy tales to the Australian
Fairy Tale Society. This is not that speech. Be very thankful! This is,
however, some of the thoughts leading to it.

Many writers and tellers of tales throw fairy story re-tellings
at me. What I’ve noticed is that fairy stories (and some of the retellings!) develop
their own history, which is not always the history of that tale. Sometimes it’s
not even close. Today, I want to think about why some things are close and some
aren’t. This is not, then, the history of a fairy tale, or even a group of
fairy tales. It’s how we look at fairy tales from different views and find
different stories. All these variants are part of the history of the fairy
tale.

It all starts with a specific bunch of people (often blokes)
who collected tales and codified tales and analysed tales.

This beginning is long after the stories began to be
popular. Very long after. It was after the first wave, second wave, third wave and
(possibly) fourth wave of literary tellings of fairy and folk stories. I regard
the first wave as the twelfth to thirteenth centuries, the second wave as the
late Middle Ages and the third waves as the courts of France later still. The
court tales may be one wave, or they may be two.

There are plenty of other ways of assigning periods to fairy
tales. The important thing is that storytellers were collecting specific
stories for their personal use long before the Grimm brothers were born. Marie
de France told her lais and the seventeenth century tellers of works like the
Pentameron came first.

What this means is that Europe has focussed on fairy tales
on and off for a very long time. When we talk about nineteenth and twentieth
century collectors, we’re marking a new phase in an old phenomenon. The
critical thing about those nineteenth and twentieth century collectors is that
they were as much focussed on collecting and collection as on telling. Their perspectives
have given the twentieth century analysis of fairy tales a district flavour.

I did a course on märchen and other tale types at
university many years ago, in another life. We focussed on types of tales and
how they were told, how they were broken down into motifs, which cultures used
what and how. This is one of the academic approaches to fairy tales. It builds
on collections of tales and of motif and on codification of tales and motifs
and it looks at form and content. This is one of the results of the nineteenth
and twentieth century approach. There’s a track from collectors such as the
Grimms and Andrew Lang, through the codifiers (Vladimir Propp, Stith Thompson and
Andrew Lang being the ones we mostly looked at when I was nineteen) and to
studies by some of the experts.

Not all of the experts, for this is not the only path. It’s
like the roads in the tale of Thomas of Ercildoune: there is a fair one, a
twisted and difficult one, and one that might go anywhere but actually leads to
fairyland. When I was nineteen, the path to heaven (the difficult path) was
through Propp and the motif indices. Now, of course, I’m a writer, and the path
to fairyland is the only one.

My studies have taken me to quite different places than
those I trod when I was in my teens. What this means is that, although I read
work by recent experts in fairy tales and other folklore (Jack Zipes is a
favourite of mine) and that they do fascinating things, I’m not longer
up-to-date with their approaches and methods. This is a shame, for I’ve finally
reached the point where I can see just where what I learned fits in a much
wider perspective. I can see how European it is and how linked to a series of literary
events, starting with those later collections.

So, where were we? Tales were collected. Tales were
codified. Tales were studied.

Let’s bring that European perspective into it and see how it
limits things. Vladimir Propp started with tales close to home, so many of the
studies have a Russian bias. The Grimm brothers generally used easily
accessible sources, so their tales also don’t reflect the universality I was
once told they did. This is why the path to academic fairy tale study is thorny
and difficult. It’s complicated, and it changes as our understanding changes.
Culture is a dynamic creature and fairy tales are always affected by this
dynamism.

Analysis these days is much work by many scholars: it’s a
whole academic discipline. Quite a few scholars take the traditional path and
work through Propp and others and then add their own work. I suspect there’s a
comfort in the traditional and that people who love fairy stories want that
comfort. What they do with that path is create a narrative about fairy tales
that has a European base and bias. It sometimes acknowledges this and discusses
the restrictions the bias imposes, and it sometimes doesn’t.

Others find joy in researching the path an actual story has
taken, from its first being written down in a particular place and time until
it reaches a form they can define as the standard form for that tale. Writers
often use these studies like kaleidoscopes and create new visions of old
stories simply by the twist of a wrist. My novel, Ms Cellophane, is a variant of Sleeping Beauty, for instance, set
in Canberra and featuring a middle-aged woman whose curse is a failed career,
rather than a spindle and whose evil fairy is her ex-boss. I alert readers to
the fairy tale by the inclusion of a magic mirror. This turns it into my story,
my re-telling.

There are modern writers who do their research (including doctorates)
on a specific fairy tale (Kate Forsyth just tackled Rapunzel) where they write
their novel and also write a book that explores the origins of the story. The
dream is to play with folklore and to explore its variants. This fits into one
of the academic views: that there is no single perfectly correct text. These
writers shift their work closer to the academic norm by giving it a very
thorough research underpinning, but are still playing with the kaleidoscope, in
reality.

So many books I’ve seen recently take the tale of one
particular tale and trace it back and across and around and find out what it’s
done in its career. A lot of their research rests on the Grimms of this world
and on the codifiers and on earlier academics. I think of it as the Fairy Tale
Fortress.

Some are like the writers who want to add variants of their
own. A few pursue a single ancient text. An ur-text. This led to scientists
using biological descriptions to persuade the world that these ur-texts not
only exist but go back thousands of years into our past. Their family trees for
tales don’t allow for the complexity of the history of story, so I don’t place
any faith in the ancientness of this tale or that.

One fascinating but very real problem with tales is that some
cultures don’t divide material into fairy tales as we do. We can damage these
cultures when we try to force their stories into a fairy tale model.

The first set of tales written down by an Indigenous
Australian was David Unaipon’s collection and it has very little in common with
the children’s writers of the same period who wrote their adaptations of
Indigenous stories and their interpretation of the Australian landscape to
create what they thought were New Australian Fairy Tales. Unaipon’s stories
encode lore and law. They’re not simple re-tellings of interesting stories. When
writers take what they think of as Aboriginal tales and tell them, divorcing
the stories from their origins and their original function and their original
owners they not only damage the cultures the tales come from. Doing this
without understanding the role of the stories in the original culture says “our
belief that fairy stories are universal to humankind is more important than any
role these particular stories might have in your culture.”

David Unaipon Image courtesy: http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/

Songlines mean that tales in Australia change according to
country. Some of these stories have been classified as fairy tales according to
some definitions anda lot of people
told them as fairy tales until quite recently. There are assumptions that rest
under these classifications and some of these assumptions are worrying.

A single tale assumes a single teller, not the complex
cultural negotiations that explain language and lore and land within Indigenous
Australian communities. It assumes that the form is correct, even if the story
has been transformed to match European tales. It assumes that the collector/s
have the authority to tell the tale. It’s a vast and troubled subject and I’m
not even a beginner in this field. One thing I know is that modern fairy tale
studies are capable of destroying parts of the cultures by trying to translate
tales into the European standards we know and love.

Whose tales are we telling? Do we have the right to re-shape
them? When I gave my talk to the Fairy Tale Society, at this stage I explained
that we can’t know these things unless we ask. Research, research and more
research. Respectful research. Research that considers consequences.

We borrow fairy tales from many cultures other than our own.
English-language cultures and the cultures related to many other European languages
and also to some Asian languages (Japanese is one) see that this is a
legitimate thing to do. This is a big question in the annals of cultural
appropriation. I can’t even begin to address it here. All I can do is raise the
subject, suggest that research is a powerful tool and that understanding is not
an optional extra, and move on.

Let me move onto tales that were inspired by fairy tales
rather than actually being folk stories of a particular kind.

Quite a few of the stories we think of as fairy tales are
actually court tales, especially those from the 17th and 18th
centuries. They’re written for reading aloud or for publication, and some of the
writers (Mme D’Aulnoy, for example) are very well known indeed. These stories
are very different in form to the fairy tale studied elsewhere. They’re the
opposite of the short märchen in so many ways. Culturally, structurally, in terms
of audience and underlying themes. This is much studied, particularly in the
volumes devoted to the history of a single story.

Less studied are the tales families own.

When I teach things Medieval, I like to point out that we
often have personal versions of the fairy tale. Our own fairy tales. My family
has a story about an ancestor that some of us tell and others avoid as being
embarrassing. It’s a bit like Richard I’s ancestral one, in that they are more
motifs than stories and help us develop a sense of the family. These snippets
fit what we need to tell about ourselves. My family needed something quite
different to Richard I. Richard I boasted about his ancestress the devil. Mine
is much more ordinary, for my cousin told me that we claim royal ancestry. Both
stories are equally untrue. Truth isn’t the point of them.

Quite a few important families in the Middle Ages had these
kind of stories. They were used in different ways for different reasons and
different audiences. The simple codification doesn’t show this clearly, but the
moment you read the tales themselves, it’s there. Fairy tales have a deep
cultural basis.

When we read the story of Melusine and think “What a nice
story about a fairy!” it’s not immediately obvious that Melusine herself was
one of these demon ancestors. She was written into a long tale in the alter
Middle Ages. That’s the path that reached the English world.

Melusine has other paths: there are local stories in various
parts of France that don’t owe their lives to Jean d’Arras’ romance about her.
Following a clear path is easier, but it can lose us so many types of story.
It’s about rural France as much as it’s about Australia.

This is a complicated subject. It can become even more
complicated.

My favourite set of complications was when I applied all the
factors I’ve talked about in this article to the various stories of King
Arthur. That’s another story for another time. This essay has been quite long
enough, and it’s only skimmed a part of the surface.

Search the History Girls

The History Girls

The History Girls are a group of best-selling, award-winning writers of historical fiction and non-fiction. Some of us write for young adults, some for fully fledged adults, some for younger readers.

Among us, we cover every period from the Stone Age to World War II. Geographically, our novels will take you from Trondheim to Troy, and the Caribbean to the Wild West, via Venice, Victorian England and Ancient Rome.

Individual, entertaining, sometimes provocative: on this daily blog we'll share our thoughts on writing, research, reviews, and all aspects of our work. We love what we do and we want to talk about it. We hope you'll want to join in!

If you want a History Girl to appear at an event or write an article or review, please contact her via her website (links are all goven on the About Us page)

Owing to an overwhelming amount of Spam, we have had to disable Anonymous Comments. Please do comment but you'll have to Follow us first.

Just scroll down in this right-hand column to under Followers and click Join this Site. Thanks.